Part 1: Introduction (2 pages)

In your Introduction to your critical analysis, include the following:

Introduce the research you selected (title, authors)

Describe the study (i.e., purpose of the study)

The study is based on the concept of trying to solve the multilayered conflict which exists in the former Yugoslavia. Which since the war in the 1990s has had numerable name changes and shifts in governments. Not to mention more than a few genocidal actions and activities. The participants claim they are performing the actions for x, y, z, etc. reasons. But as the article clearly shows, there is nothing but out of context facts, evidence, and an almost impossible to understand ethos of collectivism working to further the conflict.

Of course the conflict is well beyond any simple study to try and unravel. This specific study is all but entirely lost when it comes to both the applications of the mathematics, both the quantitative and qualitive equations used were missing the point of the regional conflict almost completely.

A novice in history can notice where the “mistakes” in the scientific method assumptions are made. The reader simply needs to examine the sentence structures to determine where the authors are reaching to find answers to how to solve the equation without any real foundation to workable solutions.

A hard and significant examination of the history of the area, reveals just how huge and inappropriate the gaps in both the quantitative and qualitive equations are. The article emphasizes from the 1990s to present issues, when in all hard fact reality the conflicts in the area go all the way back to the Vinca culture 6000 bce or 8000 years ago. More armies have marched through the area on their way to Europe than can be easily counted, this article does not address any of those issues. It in a way bypasses all that evidence in favor of the all to real modern scholastic concepts of insanely complex issues cannot be boiled down to one simple answer enough. For some academics and scholars, everything needs to be reduced down to the simplest concept possible, so that that simple concept can be tackled and solved. Real live does not work that way.

Describe the problem addressed in the study as well as the research question

The study itself was focused and centered upon trying to find ways in which it might be possible to find the ethos of the current conflict and its aftermath from previous conflicts (some of which stretch back in time by in some cases to the Vinca Culture itself circa 6000 bce.) conflicts. The study finds the most difficultly in trying to identify why the cultures would rather fight and fight and fight rather than come to an understanding and try to collectively work for peace. The shear level of miss understanding and research bias on dozens of levels leads to a great start but most of the efforts are a pure hard core waste of time.

A slight academic argument can be made that this among dozens if not hundreds of other studies in a similar line of thinking not only did not deescalate the conflicts but it could have just as easily refocused the particants deeper into their rage and need to erase the fact their enemies existed at all.

Part 2: Methods and Design (2 pages)

The reserachers worked very hard to find out who the paricipants in the current conflicts are. To isolate and focus the study into who and what the active particiapts in the present are, and work from their spoken and physical beavhiro patterns. Trying to create staticial behavior patterns.

Describe the overall design of the study you selected

Describe the type of methodology used (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method)

Describe any ethical considerations within the study you selected.

This study attempted to very hard to identify why a couple of the cultures were all but entirely focused and ethos goal directed towards gencidiing their enemy cultures. Some were even interested in genociding sub groups within their own culture. Bloodthirsty is a solid way to describe a lot of the actions and activities which occurred in this area for the last several 1000 years. The ethics of this study were centered on trying to find out why the alpha cultulrs were in essence on a soul level entireliy devoted to seeking out their enemies and erasing them from existnace. This si a huge ethical dellemma the sutyd was focused on, but failed in all ways to come even close to fiding out why.

Part 3: Culture within Research (4 pages)

IN reality there are about 50 to 100 different cultures in the area, some indiviudauls belong to more than one culture at a time. Which makes things very confusing.

This portion of your assessment is your analysis of how the researchers incorporated culture into their research.

How did the researcher(s) incorporate the nature of culture within their study?

Are there aspects of the study where researchers could have better incorporated the influence of culture in the sample, methods, analyses or conclusion, and how?

If the researchers were given an opportunity to improve on their research, what would you suggest? Be specific.

Throw out every single aspect of the studies base ideas and start from a completely different histiorgraphy and group think model concetps.

Start from zero. Start from the ideas and concepts that as a matter of beyond questioning fact that these conflicts began 2000 years before the first semi-translatable language was invented on a different continent more than 2000 miles away. Sumerian and Heiroglyphics were invtend circa 3500 bce (a huge amount of circa is involved and the earliest proto versions of those lanagues are only to an extremely small degree like 5% are translatable. Example there is a huge amount of evidence that points to the idea that the translation of “The Scorpion King” is not actually a “Scorpion” but reference to an ancient historical figure from Egypt. However that information is not all that acceptable to modern genociad level anti-Semitic acadmics and schlatsics. Which is one of the core issues for this article, why do the group A cultures want so desperately to genocide group B cultures. The Jewish, Muslim, other, and indifference groups of cultures in the area are pure subconsciously fighting out theocracy ideas which predate translatable written languages), these conflicts began wall before 3500 bce, and will continue far into the future. After 6000 years of non stop conflicts with only a small group of people having any idea what the originals of the hatreds are, it is at this point almost an evolutionary concept to seek out “the enemy” and erase them from existence. Logic, reason, and language have nothing to do with it ater pushing close to 10,000 years of the same ethos goal direction.

Add to that whole package of gencide are the facts that the area of south eastern eruopen north western Ǽgean are regionally are suffering from a rather insane level of cultural inferiority complex. The area is not Greece, and it is not “really” Europe, so the violently patrioarcal cultures who are not egotism and arrogance than the next several world leader cultures combined are living in an area considered by both Greece and Europe to be a back water nothing. That does not help the esituation at all.

Similarally just because the battle of Actium took place 100s of miles south, does not mean the cultural issues of tht battle circa 31 bce were the same then as now. What could the battle of Actium with the participants of Cleoptra and Antony battleing against octaivian and his roman friends have anything at all to do with why this article and study have no real basis in reailty. Same reasons, Cleotpra and antony were not only not lovers, he would not have been allowed within 3 feet of her the entre time they knew each toher. She was Pharaoh and Empress of Rome, no matter how hard the Roman Prooganda machine churned out fictions, the facts are still the facts. Her Twins were absolutely not in any way, shape, or frm from Antony. That fiction beived full on for the last 2000 plus years has less factual evidence to back it up than trying to study the Bosnia etc cultures from 1990 fowrad. They two conflicts are mostly propaganda machine inspired, where the people churning out the progoganda have no idea they are lying. The people who knew they were lying are the Roman Senators who shortly after convinced themselves that not only are the stories they told in the propogndsa rags true, but why would it have been any other way. Same in bosnia same in Actium. Caesar ordered Antony to protect and service his queen. That is what Antony did, till that battle when it was antony’s job to ram his ships into the collectied roman fleet, allowing Cleoaptara to escape the battle, sail due west to Italy. Pick up supplies and ht elike, and head out of the Mediterranean for Northumberland. Although these aspects of Cleopatra and Octavian’s lifes are facts, you wil not find many documents pirinted in the last 2040 years to suggest anything of this sort has any basis in reality. Same goes for the Bosnia conflict, the facts are so deeply hidden, the facts hidden have cascaded into a mythology which most of the world believes.

How would your suggestion facilitate positive social change?